I said I wasn't going to post further... but I changed my mind!
No need to be sorry, but you do seemingly have a lot to learn...
The irony of you telling me I have a lot to learn when it's you who is incapable of interpreting evidence is not lost on me. But anyway...
People once thought the Earth was flat, the Sun orbited the Earth and that Phlogiston was the 5th "element" that had to be present in an object for it to burn (no... really... look it up - yourself this time
). Time, understanding and a better theories helped disprove all of those.
I don't need to look this up, I know all this. Do you know what disproved all these theories in the end? The scientific method. So why are you so distrusting of it now? It was a LONG time ago when people thought the Earth was flat anyway...
It's a very common fallacy to think that because scientific thinking has changed in the past, everything we know now is wrong and will be replaced. These things weren't 'wrong' - they were right at the time for what was needed. It's common to think that there were these huge sweeping changes where opinion suddenly flipped one way or the other, but for the most part that's wrong - what happens is that a better model came along and augmented the first one. Phlogiston wasn't "wrong" at the time - it was a perfectly adequate model that describes what happens and could even predict what would happen when you burned something, but as you get into the details, the model breaks down and a better one appears. They weren't opposing ideas. The same thing happened with Netwon's model of gravity - F = (G m1 m2)/r^2 isn't wrong, it works perfectly well to work out the force between 2 objects due to gravity. It just breaks down at certain boundaries, and Einstein's model of gravity works better in these cases. We may find an even more precise model in the future as we measure things in ever more detail, who knows?
The point is that it's a logical fallacy to assume that just because scientific thinking has shifted (slightly) in the past, it's justification for disagreeing with current models and theories - it just isn't. Similar to scientific figures in history having been 'mavericks' and proven right against thinking at the past, people think that because these people existed, they could be one of them and it justifies holding views against the current thinking. Wrong - you need some damned good evidence, AND rebuttals of all the evidence pointing towards the current model!
Just because we have instruments capable of the greatest precision and computers capable of billions of calculations a second doesn't mean we are even close to understanding how our climate works. We can't even predict 5 days ahead, let alone 5 months or even 5 years - the system is completely chaotic and unmodellable beyond thracking this weeks' low pressure system. Despite man's need to fit theories to data (or is it the other way around....), there are just too many variables for it to be undeniable fact that AGW is going to ruin the planet. If you think otherwise, you have been suckered and lost all ability to reason and question what is going on based on ALL the data around you.
As someone above pointed out, you are mixing up weather and climate. A common mistake, but trust me - it's not me who has been 'suckered'! What do you think is more likely - that 97% of scientists are wrong/part of some conspiracy, or whatever nutjob bonkers conspiracy website you have read has made up some pseudo-science countering climate change because it's inconvenient for it to be true?
It's undoubtedly a complex subject, which is why a very small minority of papers do suggest other possibilities (as per the site you have posted). I think you need to understand
- How small this list is compared to the mountain of material and papers out there on the subject
- How the list of 'rebuttals' they posted is clearly hypocritical given that they claim criticism doesn't mean something is wrong, yet somehow say that you aren't allowed to criticise them because they have a list of rebuttals (seriously?)
- How a lot of the papers there actually have not a lot to do with the subject, and some are even about the debate, not about the science itself
I tried to read some of the papers (rather than just acknowledge the existence of a list, why not try reading some actual evidence?) - every one I tried required you to be registered with some journal or website. So, they can pretty much claim what they like about what these papers say and noone can disagree unless they pay or have access in some other way. The very definition of dogma! "Just trust us, these papers say this" - what a waste of time.
As far as I can see, the weather we are having now may be more extreme than we have had within living memory, but it is not outside the bounds of that we know about over the last few hundred, let alone the few thousand before that (there were glaciers down to Bristol 10000 years ago and the Sahara was fertile around 6000-10000 years ago). What we have to understand is that the climate is changing, simply because it does. Mankind needs to adapt, not try and stop it like Canute on the sea shore.
Don't you think the scientists have taken climate variation into account? Yes, the climate varies over time - the point is that it's happening much much faster now than it ever has done before, due to human influences, and it's too fast for the planet or the species on it to cope with. All well and good saying "We'll just adapt" - I don't think you realise the scale of the change that is happening or what is required!
Now if you really want something to tackle that will cause problems in the next 50 or so years - try global population explosion. Generally pushed under the carpet as the only real way to do something about it is draconian edicts that you can only have one child. And that just doesn't elect those in power, so simply is not on the agenda. Unfortunately, no amount of green tax/electric cars/wind farms is going to solve that problem, but it is coming.....
I won't disagree that this is a problem, but it does seem like you are trying to distract the attention away from the discussion in hand!
I suspect no one commenting on this thread has the knowledge or background to comment with any authority either way. But that doesn't stop us.
The difference being that most people are commenting in line with the scientific consensus, you are commenting against it. It's you who needs to back up their claims. If you are going to post against what is current thinking, you had better have a damn good reason. As far as I can tell, all you've managed to do so far is point out that a tiny list of papers exist that may or may not refute climate change. And this is enough for you to base your beliefs on the subject on? You REALLY need to learn how to interpret and disseminate evidence!